Just a moment...

Report
FeedbackReport
Bars
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

1961 (3) TMI 104

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y, Bihar. The facts relevant to the question raised in this appeal may be briefly stated. On information supplied by one Qurban Ahmad, the Assistant Custodian, Giridih, issued a notice under s. 7(1) of the Administration of Evacuee property Act, 1950 (Act 31 of 1950), (hereinafter called the Act), to the appellant to show cause why he should not declare holdings Nos. 326, 774 and 654 in his possession as evacuee properties. The Assistant Custodian, after making the necessary inquiry, held that the said holdings were evacuee properties. The appellant filed a revision petition under s. 26 of the Act against the said order to the Deputy Custodian, Hazaribagh, who set aside the order of the Assistant Custodian and remanded the matter to him fo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....7, 1954, to declare any property to be evacuee property unless proceedings are pending on the said date for declaring such property as evacuee property, and that in the present case, as the appeal against the order of the Assistant Custodian was filed only on February 22, 1955, no proceeding was pend- ing on the prescribed date and, therefore, the Custodian illegally made the order in direct contravention of the provisions of B. 7-A of the Act. (3) The Custodian acted perversely in condoning the delay in filing the appeal to him without assigning any reasons. (4) The notice issued to the appellant under s. 7(1) of the Act was defective and, therefore, the proceedings taken pursuant thereto were void. The appellant lost before the High Court....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....perty is evacuee property within the meaning of the Act, he may, after causing notice thereof to be given in such manner as may be prescribed to the persons interested, and after holding such inquiry into the matter as the circumstances of the case permit, pass an order declaring any such property to be evacuee property. Sub-s. (3) thereof enjoins on him the duty to publish in the Official Gazette all properties declared by him to be evacuee properties. After such declaration the said properties vest in the Custodian for the State. Section 9 empowers the Custodian to take possession of evacuee property vested in him. Section 10 confers powers on the Custodian to take such measures as he considers necessary or expedient for the purposes of s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t is liable to be revised by the Custodian or the Custodian- General, as the case may be, under s. 26 or s. 27 of the Act. Learned counsel for the respondents contends that the words "any person aggrieved" under s. 25 of the Act are comprehensive enough to include a Custodian and, therefore, a Custodian can prefer an appeal against an order of a Custodian releasing properties under s. 7 of the Act. Realizing that an obvious anomaly is implicit in the argument, learned counsel concedes that an appeal can be filed only by a Custodian other than the Custodian who made the order releasing the properties. It is said that the Central Government may, under s. 6 of the Act, provide for the distribution of work among the various Custodian....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s so declared or any other such aggrieved person. The words "any person aggrieved" in the context of the Act cannot include any Custodian as defined in the Act. Strong reliance is placed upon the decision of this Court in Ebrahim Aboobaker v. Custodian-General of Evacuee Property [1952] S.C.R. 696 in support of the contention of the respondents. In that case, on information supplied by one Tek Chand Dolwani to the Additional Custodian of Evacuee Property, the latter started proceedings under the Bombay Evacuees (Administration of Property) Act, 1949, against one Aboobaker. The Additional Custodian, after recording the statement of Aboobaker and examining the evidence produced by Tek Chand Dolwani, held that the said Aboobaker was....